Boeing: Did the Air Force “owe” them the contract?

News that the U.S. Air Force has picked a team from Northrop Grumman Corp. and Airbus parent EADS over our very own Boeing Co. for what could be a $40 billion tanker deal has many readers crying foul. They’re crushed that Boeing lost — of course. But some are even more enraged that a team they consider foreign won.

Boeing offered the KC-767 Advanced Tanker in the U.S. Air Force’s KC-X competition — and lost. Artist rendition by Chuck Schroeder. MSF07-1700-1 2/12/2007 (The Boeing Company)

“This is a joke. American security should be solely in the hands of American contractors,” one reader wrote. “Why is France even allowed to bid on major national defense procurement contracts?” asked another.

But the winning team isn’t as “foreign” as some might think. Nor is our beloved Boeing all red, white and blue.

Globalized trade has long been part of the American economic landscape. Many media outlets already are pointing out that China is one of Boeing’s largest foreign parts suppliers. And while the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co., the parent of Airbus, is based in France, it’s been supplying NATO — our allies — for years. The other half of that team, Northrup Grumman Corp., is based in Los Angeles. As for where the Northrop-EADS tanker will be assembled, it’ll be on this side of the pond, in Mobile, Ala.

The terms “foreign” and “domestic” couldn’t be more blurred.

So the question is this: Is it helpful or productive in such a border-less world to view trade contracts through such a stark dichotomy? Even more critical — can it be considered fair or wise to think the Air Force owes Boeing this contract merely because they share the same national border?

Update, March 3, 2008: This post has been changed since it was first published to clarify China is one of Boeing’s largest supplier, not its largest supplier.